Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Shouldn't Orks also have two wounds then?

Some do. Some have 3.

Toughness, save, wounds, and special mechanics are all used to model durability in 40k. Having a diverse range of different armies using different stats to represent their durability to make different weapons effective or less effective is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I'd say that requiring 20 lasgun shots to kill a marine out of cover is a bad thing. 40 for a marine in cover - even worse. We'll see how the Eldar and Nid books pan out, but Genestealers and Banshees aren't nearly as marine-killy as they should be.

I'd also say that boltguns having no benefit over lasguns when firing at Orks is a bad thing. That actually reduced a difference between troops.

if only boltguns were fired by models with higher ballistic skill or better access to passive auras they'd still be better, or if they had some kind of bonus rules that gave them some additional stats like AP - but alas.

That's a pretty weak argument, imo.
Plus Guardsman sergeants and Officers can get Bolt Pitols and Bolt Guns.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
The majority of players also play space marines, and probably don’t want their toys brought back in line

I dunno, I see a few non marine players here who are happy with it. I think the game has just moved on, I guess I understand how people who whinged about the RT to 2e power boost marines got feel now. But not really any point in worrying about it, things have to change some time.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Don't Tyranid warriors have T4 and W3?

I think that's a bit nuts, and for 21 ppm? Absurd! Takes two overcharged plasma shots!

All kidding aside I'm a big fan of Tyranid warriors being how they are. It's different and unique. But seems like everyone harps on marines being W2 but warriors being W3 is just fine.

Tyranid Warriors are great, but they've also been bigger, multiwound models since as far back as I remember (2nd ed.) The issue is that other races have been eroded in relation to Marines.

Oh, and now we have this nonsense.

Tyranid Warrior: T4, 3W, 4+ save
Heavy Intercessor: T5, 3W, 3+ save

"MARINES UBER ALLES!!"

*sigh

Tyranid warriors are depicted as being terminator equivalents in the fluff, and they definitely number in the billions.

Why in the fluff they didn't already slaughter everything?

Well... there havn't been many battles were marines won against nids. They usually tend to kill the swarmlord and call it a day.

As far as I remember, Marines aren't fighting the whole damn war on their own. At least not all the time. The games we play on the table, at least to me, are the decisive turning points in the war, where the space marine captain and his gaggle of superhuman goons attempt to deliver their surgical strike to the Swarmlord, while the other Imperial elements are holding back the rest of the endless horde.

But more to the point, yes there are nasties that should be stronger than Marines, like the Warriors, the Immortals, the etcs and etcs. Let the Warriors be equivalent to the Terminators, Aggressors and Heavy Intercessors, or even stronger than them.

At least as far as nids go, you just can't depict the whole battle on the table top.

If the nids are engaged in a ground battle its a whole world simultaneous assault. There are not enough SM in the imperium to fight that battle on a decently sized world.

The entire legion of BA and their successors with SoB and guard support lost world after world after world in the Baal system.

 Lance845 wrote:
Marines having 2 wounds is literally double everyone else's. They also come with T4 and 5 being easy enough to get, a 3+ save, with 2+ not being difficult to get, and invul saves available.

SM 100% are the guys doing all of them. Compare them to ANY xenos army and you will see how everyone else gets 1 or 2 of the toughness stats and SM regularly get 3 and sometimes 4.

Just because custodes do it all better doesn't mean SM isn't doing it.

I'm not really sure what to say to this except "no, they aren't"?

Let's take a look at some of the basic units of the various factions for a sec.

1 - sisters. Theyre T3 W1, same statline defensively of a guardsman until you get to that save stat - 3+, 2+ in cover. that means if you shoot them with basic weaponry, they save quite a bit, and if you shoot them with dedicated anti-elite weaponry, you bottom out against their tough and wounds.

2 - orks. T5 W1 Sv6+, which makes a lot of traditional anti-horde weapons wound them on 5s and 4s.

3 - daemons/harlequins. T3 W1 sv5++/4++. Easy to cut down with anti-horde weapons, but all AP is wasted against them. no value at all.

4 - necrons. T4 W1 Sv4+/3+ with a 5+ get back up. Similar durability per points as marines but multidamage weaponry spikes vs marines while doing absolutely diddly against necrons

At W1, the weapons you want to bring against marines are the exact same weapons you want to bring against necrons, against sisters, against scions, against aspect warriors...etc.

At W2, my elite infantry actually has space to gain a defensive advantage over a marine by being W1. If you bring a disintegrator cannon against me or a heavy bolter against me, the marine loses 20pts to an unsaved wound while I lose - lets use sisters here - 9. But a sister still gets to feel much tougher - about twice as tough - vs lasguns, boltguns, other AP- weaponry as a guardsman.

I again this cannot be stated enough HATE space marines. I'm sick to fething death of them. but they have, for better or for worse, literally 1/2 of the design space that exists in warhammer 40,000. When my units as an "Almost literally anything but space marines" player have to share the exact same design space while not ever ever ever ever being allowed to be better than space marines or armies of screeching babies batters down GW's doors until they finally give up and nerf the thing that's making them cry, then I want space marines to be as elite in game as humanly possible. I want them to be properly costed for that, and I think 20ppm is basically a good spot for an individual space marine to be at, but that gives me and my units a 19-point budget to play with to get to be cool instead of all getting crammed down into a race to the bottom.

Marines finally getting to have a second attack in melee is why I'm allowed to have dark eldar units that are better at melee than their craftworld counterparts, or why my ork nobz are allowed to be T5 W2 Sv4+ base finally (though that T5 didnt go by without a lot of wailing because that specific number was bigger than a specific number on the space mawine datasheet booo hooo hooo). its why, I hope maybe someday to be allowed a T4 Sv4+ 5++ basic statline on my genestealers, or a W1 Sv4+ 5++ statline on my howling banshees.

If will smith painted blue appeared to me and gave me magic wishes, would I wish for the current state of the game? Hell no, I'd wish for the marine statline to not be a hard ceiling nobody else's gak was allowed to exceed and I'd wish for them to be a reasonable fraction of the releases in whats supposed to be a faction based game. JUST twice what everyone else gets would be an UNIMAGINABLE luxury to me.

but is this better than when everyone was crammed underneath the ceiling of a gakky W1 T4 Sv3+ A1 LD8 hard ceiling? Yep. A million Times Yep.

I want to see the point values increased, and the max point values of games also increased, to open up more design space for models. And a shift from d6 to d10 or whatever, again, to open up more space for all the wild and unique things in Warhammer to exist in an appropriately point-costed manner. Less squabbling over if a Guardsman should cost the same as an Eldar Guardian or the same as a Cultist. Slot them in between both, with bigger numbers to work with. Last line just being a theoretical situation, not based on actual numbers. Just the idea that some models should be between the strength of some other models, but the single-digit point values for light infantry don't allow a lot of space. Model A is 6 points, Model B is 7 points. Model C shouldn't be as strong as B, nor weak as A, where does it go? Etc.

Spoletta wrote:
Tyranid warriors are depicted as being terminator equivalents in the fluff, and they definitely number in the billions.

Why in the fluff they didn't already slaughter everything?

I thought most of the big battles won against Tyranids were won against the Hive Fleets (using specially-developed viruses and such), rather than on individual worlds?

Tyranids might have a billion warriors (or the capacity to make a billion warriors, as I believe most tyranid organisms are only made when needed?), but it doesn't matter how individually strong they are if the Hive Fleet can't bring them to bear.

Spoletta wrote:
They usually tend to kill the swarmlord and call it a day.

Aside, I really hate the Swarmlord.

 the_scotsman wrote:
. . .
but is this better than when everyone was crammed underneath the ceiling of a gakky W1 T4 Sv3+ A1 LD8 hard ceiling? Yep. A million Times Yep.

Ahh see. . . here's my beef. Back in the day the other factions weren't crammed underneath the Marine stats/power level. Necron Warriors being individually more powerful than a Marine was a real thing. Genestealers would individually happily wipe the floor with a Marine if they got into contact, at WS 7!!! (that's a 0+ in todays terms). Daemons like Bloodletters the same. The Shuriken Catapult was far better than a Bolter, and Bolt Rifles weren't making a mockery of the once powerful-feeling Pulse rifle.

Gee, if other factions were allowed to have some better gak, they'd have a wider gammut to explore. What happening right now is Marines are getting a big boost, and other factions are getting "aren't you happy with this 50% boost while Marines get the 100%?".

I'm really on the same page as you Insectum, but 40K has changed. It's not the same as it was, it is now a space marine power fantasy game explicitly. The overblown fiction in the novels has been translated into the game.

And that's what people expect, and really, can you blame them? That's what most of the fiction of the game is about, as well as the various video games that tie in to the tabletop game. It's pretty reasonable for players to expect the game to match that fiction. The decisions to set the game on this path were made a pretty long time ago really, and we're to the point now where wanting it to be otherwise really makes us the odd ones out.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyranid warriors are depicted as being terminator equivalents in the fluff, and they definitely number in the billions.

Why in the fluff they didn't already slaughter everything?

I thought most of the big battles won against Tyranids were won against the Hive Fleets (using specially-developed viruses and such), rather than on individual worlds?

Tyranids might have a billion warriors (or the capacity to make a billion warriors, as I believe most tyranid organisms are only made when needed?), but it doesn't matter how individually strong they are if the Hive Fleet can't bring them to bear.

I think war with Tyranids is absolute and total in a way that it isn't always with other factions. I think a lot of battles with chaos and Orks are like "preserve the manufactorum" and "ensure planetary tithes can be met" or "chase away the raiding party". But because a Tyranid fleet is so big, and the consequences of defeat are the total loss of a world, the way war with Tyranids works is more like "nuke everything that enters the atmosphere or touches ground". Huge wave attacks and a different scale of weaponry are probably deployed, as such nids take huge casualties.

Marines don't make wave-of-body attacks in the millions.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They usually tend to kill the swarmlord and call it a day.

Aside, I really hate the Swarmlord.

Same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm really on the same page as you Insectum, but 40K has changed. It's not the same as it was, it is now a space marine power fantasy game explicitly. The overblown fiction in the novels has been translated into the game.

And that's what people expect, and really, can you blame them? That's what most of the fiction of the game is about, as well as the various video games that tie in to the tabletop game. It's pretty reasonable for players to expect the game to match that fiction. The decisions to set the game on this path were made a pretty long time ago really, and we're to the point now where wanting it to be otherwise really makes us the odd ones out.

It's gross. It's soooo gross.


I actually blame this a lot on the Guardsman thing from early 8th ed. The amount of GEQ vs. MEQ math hammering, and the prevalence of IS in the competitive realm really sent people into fits about how Marines compare with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
. . .
but is this better than when everyone was crammed underneath the ceiling of a gakky W1 T4 Sv3+ A1 LD8 hard ceiling? Yep. A million Times Yep.

Ahh see. . . here's my beef. Back in the day the other factions weren't crammed underneath the Marine stats/power level. Necron Warriors being individually more powerful than a Marine was a real thing. Genestealers would individually happily wipe the floor with a Marine if they got into contact, at WS 7!!! (that's a 0+ in todays terms). Daemons like Bloodletters the same. The Shuriken Catapult was far better than a Bolter, and Bolt Rifles weren't making a mockery of the once powerful-feeling Pulse rifle.

Gee, if other factions were allowed to have some better gak, they'd have a wider gammut to explore. What happening right now is Marines are getting a big boost, and other factions are getting "aren't you happy with this 50% boost while Marines get the 100%?".

sure, except that all those examples you just listed (except for Necron Warriors, admittedly) were better than marines in one very specific area, and worse than them in basically every other area.

Pulse Rifles were 6" of max range and 1pt of strength better than a boltgun...and on a BS4+ platform so the point of strength didnt really matter.

lots of stuff happily mulched marines in melee, because marines were just gak in melee for a really really really long time. Ork boyz mulched marines in melee super fething easily, I remember, I did it all throughout 5e, I would more than happily charge your 10 tactical marines with my 10 ork boyz - armed with shootas no less and the one all-important klaw nob obviously - and just chew through them over the course of 3 turns.

a bloodletter or a genestealer model for model are still solidly better at melee damage output than a tactical marine. And recall - neither of these units have actually received their post-marines-2.0 update yet. Most of the game has, as yet, not received their post marines 2.0 update. a bloodletter is what, 2A S5 AP-2 D1, D2 on a 6 to wound? Am I remembering that right?

Wyches are now base A3 S3 Ap-1 d1, AP-2 on a 6 to wound, and +1 to a stat of their choice, pre-subfactions. that rules. That's exactly where they should be at statwise compared to marines - way more damage in melee model-by-model, and even more point-for-point.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
. . .
but is this better than when everyone was crammed underneath the ceiling of a gakky W1 T4 Sv3+ A1 LD8 hard ceiling? Yep. A million Times Yep.

Ahh see. . . here's my beef. Back in the day the other factions weren't crammed underneath the Marine stats/power level. Necron Warriors being individually more powerful than a Marine was a real thing. Genestealers would individually happily wipe the floor with a Marine if they got into contact, at WS 7!!! (that's a 0+ in todays terms). Daemons like Bloodletters the same. The Shuriken Catapult was far better than a Bolter, and Bolt Rifles weren't making a mockery of the once powerful-feeling Pulse rifle.

Gee, if other factions were allowed to have some better gak, they'd have a wider gammut to explore. What happening right now is Marines are getting a big boost, and other factions are getting "aren't you happy with this 50% boost while Marines get the 100%?".

sure, except that all those examples you just listed (except for Necron Warriors, admittedly) were better than marines in one very specific area, and worse than them in basically every other area.

The question to ask is "How much better" and "How much worse" in comparison. Because that's been sliding.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Pulse Rifles were 6" of max range and 1pt of strength better than a boltgun...and on a BS4+ platform so the point of strength didnt really matter.

S5 wounded GEQ on a 2+ and could Glance AV11. It could Pen Truckks and Raiders. It could actually wound T8. "didn't really matter" sells it far short.

 the_scotsman wrote:

lots of stuff happily mulched marines in melee, because marines were just gak in melee for a really really really long time. Ork boyz mulched marines in melee super fething easily, I remember, I did it all throughout 5e, I would more than happily charge your 10 tactical marines with my 10 ork boyz - armed with shootas no less and the one all-important klaw nob obviously - and just chew through them over the course of 3 turns.

Missing the point. My guess is that it took more Boyz to do the same amount of damage to Marines in 5th ed than in 3rd ed. They dropped in points value for some reason, no? And how do those compare to todays boyz?

 the_scotsman wrote:

a bloodletter or a genestealer model for model are still solidly better at melee damage output than a tactical marine. And recall - neither of these units have actually received their post-marines-2.0 update yet. Most of the game has, as yet, not received their post marines 2.0 update. a bloodletter is what, 2A S5 AP-2 D1, D2 on a 6 to wound? Am I remembering that right?

In 4th edition a Bloodletter also had S5, but ignored armor and had 3 attacks on the charge. They were also T4 instead of todays T3. They cost 26 points to a Marines 15.

In 2nd Ed, if ten Genestealers charged 10 Marines, that would be 10 dead Marines in one round of fighting. Heck, if five Genestealers charged 10 Marines, that could have easily been 10 dead Marines. Same thing with Banshees.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Wyches are now base A3 S3 Ap-1 d1, AP-2 on a 6 to wound, and +1 to a stat of their choice, pre-subfactions. that rules. That's exactly where they should be at statwise compared to marines - way more damage in melee model-by-model, and even more point-for-point.

How do they compare vs. Marines in their earlier incarnations I wonder? It's not a question of "Is a Wych better than a Marine in CC?" It's a "If 10 Wyches and 10 Marines had a brawl in a dark alley, who wins and how long does it take?" Then compare that to earlier editions.

THEN recall that Primaris are a thing now and put up even better numbers in the vs. department.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Wyches are now base A3 S3 Ap-1 d1, AP-2 on a 6 to wound, and +1 to a stat of their choice, pre-subfactions. that rules. That's exactly where they should be at statwise compared to marines - way more damage in melee model-by-model, and even more point-for-point.

How do they compare vs. Marines in their earlier incarnations I wonder?

In fairness, Wyches now are probably stronger than they were in the past.

However, it's a little difficult to make direct comparisons as many game mechanics have changed since then. For example, many units in the past didn't want to kill units on the first turn of combat as leaving enemies alive meant they couldn't be shot during the enemy turn.

Perhaps more crucially, though, they didn't need to kill every enemy model directly. They could win by causing more casualties than the enemy, potentially causing the enemy to flee (at which point they would have a good chance of killing the remainder outright).

I bring this up because this was actually one of the things that made Marines more durable than their stats alone would indicate - ATSKNF meant they couldn't be cut down. If they failed their morale check and fled, then either they got away or the enemy caught them and they just carried on fighting as if nothing had happened.

Speaking as someone whose Necron Warrior squads frequently suffered 50+% casualties as a result of fleeing combat and being cut down, this was a huge advantage to have.

Alas, it's also an advantage that the current rules simply don't allow for.

^ATSKNF was very powerful, yes. But the "role identity" of being able to effectively kill marine squads despite ATSKNF is something to be regarded highly, especially if you're talking about the basic tabletop experience or the "feel" of a unit.

5th ed Morale rules hit Necrons hard. Switching from "amount outnumbered" to "casualties removed" for Leadership modification hurt bad, especially since you couldn't resurrect models after a sweeping advance.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Then how have the Imperium managed to resist and even defeat the Necrons in battle when they can easily field an army of what is essentially thousands of space marines, more than there are marines in the galaxy, as their basic troop?

Because the Imperium can field a fuckton of Leman Russ tanks that the Necrons, while slightly better at anti-tank than an Astartes with a bolt weapon, fold to because the kinetic energy transfer of a battle cannon is just too intense.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
How did the Astral Knights fight through many times their number of Necron warriors inside the World Engine before crippling it?

Heroism, tenacity, and probably plasma and melta weaponry. There've been examples in real life of humans fighting through many times their number of enemies of about the same capabilities. It should be a heroic feat, not expectedly routine.

I'd be very happy to see Tyranid Warriors rise to be the durable and powerful units they always should have been.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ATSKNF was very powerful, yes. But the "role identity" of being able to effectively kill marine squads despite ATSKNF is something to be regarded highly, especially if you're talking about the basic tabletop experience or the "feel" of a unit.

Oh absolutely. I just meant that combat units in the past could be more effective than a direct comparison of stats might imply, given that they often only needed to win combat - not kill their opponents outright.

But yes, there were definitely models that didn't need to rely on sweeping advances to kill MEQ units. I think a relatively small percentage of those units can still claim to be effective against modern Marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

5th ed Morale rules hit Necrons hard. Switching from "amount outnumbered" to "casualties removed" for Leadership modification hurt bad, especially since you couldn't resurrect models after a sweeping advance.

It's funny, despite the modifiers I actually remember combat being far more vicious for Necrons in 3rd/4th. Though that might have been more because of being able to kill one unit and charge straight into another unit.

The 5th edition rules might have been harsher in theory but (at least in my experience) I also had a lot more tools to defend with. For example, a lot of my losses in 4th were down to characters like SM HQs or Daemon Princes that could basically win combat single-handed. However, 5th gave us Mind-Shackle Scarabs, which had (at worst) a 50% chance of neutralising any enemy character. Plus being able to take small units of Immortals as troops, rather than being stuck with blobs of Warriors as the only option.

Getting off topic, I know, but I think it's an interesting conversation.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Nah, that's a big part of what makes Necrons scary. Moreover, I don't know if the numbers of Necrons are ever outright stated the way you imply they are.

The entire civilian population of the Necrontyr, a galaxy-spanning civilization, were converted to Necron warriors. We also know that Necron superweapons like the World Engine housed tens of thousands.

Necron warriors aren't as numerous as Ork boyz or Tyranid gaunts, but they would outnumber Marines in any given battlefield 1,000/1 or more.

Aight. The Necrontyr were always portrayed as having problems with... staying alive, so who knows how numerous they actually were? With their tech they didn't need a massive population to fight wars.

Luckily the Astartes are just one component of the Imperium's war machine.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Can you show me where the Tyranids field "billions" of Tyranid Warriors?

It's a pretty easy logical jump to make considering what we've seen in the Milky Way galaxy is a fraction of their true power and the amount of biomass they have access to.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
And do the Tyranids not have their own heavy munitions or anti-tank to counteract the battle cannons? Because if they were fielding billions of Tyranid warriors in battles one would imagine all they'd have to do is neuter the enemy's artillery to effortlessly win every battle. Yet strangely I can't recall any fluff where billions of Tyranid warriors just 1v1 every space marine they come across. Strange, right?

I mean, the #1 reason that doesn't happen is GW doesn't like to write stories of Astartes losing.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Buddy I don't give a single gak about your thoughts on why GW does anything, nor does anybody else. Try to rein in your marine envy and stay on topic.

And I find your idea that Astartes stans should enjoy "favored customer status" with GW to be repulsive, and a lot of people here agree with me.

When an individual Necron warrior was a match for an individual Astartes the setting was in a better place and the armies had better thematics.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
No, it's idiotic. If you believe it would be better for a horde of barely sentient robotic chaff to be the equal of the Imperium's best soldiers south of the Custodes despite the fact that said robotic chaff outnumbers the Astartes by many orders of magnitude you are simply wrong.Or, more accurately, you just really hate the Imperium in general and the Astartes in particular which, given your posting history, is very blatantly the case. But your own personal biases do not take precedence over what makes far better sense in the fluff, I'm sorry.

It worked in 2-4th edition, so you're fething wrong. And of course I despise the Imperium, it's a murderous, genocidal theofascist regime without redeeming qualities. But the question is whether its depiction makes for good storytelling, and the current Gary Stu Astartes and positively portrayed Imperium don't do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Don't Tyranid warriors have T4 and W3?

I think that's a bit nuts, and for 21 ppm? Absurd! Takes two overcharged plasma shots!

All kidding aside I'm a big fan of Tyranid warriors being how they are. It's different and unique. But seems like everyone harps on marines being W2 but warriors being W3 is just fine.

They used to be WS 6 BS 6 S5 T5 W2 , actually. Way back in the day.

Hecaton wrote:
And of course I despise the Imperium, it's a murderous, genocidal theofascist regime without redeeming qualities.

Someone's injecting a little too much real life into their fiction stories...

I have to say, morale mechanics are probably the most inmersion breaking thing that I have found in 40k.

I know good morale mechanics are very good. But in 40k they just don't work.

They are only fluff appropriate for human-tier units, Tau and orks. And having a whole mechanic to basically punish 3 armies doesn't feel right.

Demons, Eldar, Necrons, Marines... have you seen those armies actually running away from a battle in ANY form of warhammer media outside the tabletop? I mean, you could probably find some examples but just the idea breaks my inmersion. (Retreating as a force from a losing battle is not the same than some banshees running screaming because some orks krumped them good)



Also, the necron warrior and inmortals nerfs weren't made because marines but because GW wanted to expand the army and add stuff like Lychguard and Praetorians etc...

9th Ed doesn't have morale mechanics. It has a 'lose more' phase where you get to lose more models because you lost models, only in this special 'lose more' phase, all the normal ways you prevent losses (toughness values, wounds, various saves) are completely ignored.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Wyches are now base A3 S3 Ap-1 d1, AP-2 on a 6 to wound, and +1 to a stat of their choice, pre-subfactions. that rules. That's exactly where they should be at statwise compared to marines - way more damage in melee model-by-model, and even more point-for-point.

How do they compare vs. Marines in their earlier incarnations I wonder? It's not a question of "Is a Wych better than a Marine in CC?" It's a "If 10 Wyches and 10 Marines had a brawl in a dark alley, who wins and how long does it take?" Then compare that to earlier editions.

THEN recall that Primaris are a thing now and put up even better numbers in the vs. department.

 Galas wrote:
Also, the necron warrior and inmortals nerfs weren't made because marines but because GW wanted to expand the army and add stuff like Lychguard and Praetorians etc...

1: Have Marines ever been nerfed in order to add more powerful stuff? Or did GW just add more powerful stuff?

2: Necrons already had a unit in the high-elite tier. They had Pariahs. GW essentially removed Pariahs, dropped Immortals to Warrior levels, and dropped Warriors (and Flayed ones) to some new lower tier. Praetorians/Lychguard were sorta slotted in at former Immortal level, iirc. Basically everything just got shifted downward for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Wyches are now base A3 S3 Ap-1 d1, AP-2 on a 6 to wound, and +1 to a stat of their choice, pre-subfactions. that rules. That's exactly where they should be at statwise compared to marines - way more damage in melee model-by-model, and even more point-for-point.

How do they compare vs. Marines in their earlier incarnations I wonder? It's not a question of "Is a Wych better than a Marine in CC?" It's a "If 10 Wyches and 10 Marines had a brawl in a dark alley, who wins and how long does it take?" Then compare that to earlier editions.

THEN recall that Primaris are a thing now and put up even better numbers in the vs. department.

I consider primaris to be 'what marines stats are now' regardless of crying and whining from either firstborn or primaris fanboys.

3e marines vs 3e wyches: if the wyches charge and the marines arent in terrain, its a deadlock. In terrain or if marines charge, it's a slaughter and the marines most likely wipe the squad. Wyches are 10pt models, with no AP, no special rules, no 4+ invuln, basic CCW.

9E marines vs 9E wyches: if the wyches charge, the marines most likely lose 6-ish models and are at risk of losing a couple more from morale. If the marines charge, they kill 7/10 wyches and take 1-2 casualties in return.

So, similar matchup, except that the wyches charging means they get to actually win now, instead of a deadlock for 1 turn then losing the second turn.

If that's so, Wyches might be one of the few exceptions to the general "xenos decline".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
And of course I despise the Imperium, it's a murderous, genocidal theofascist regime without redeeming qualities.

Someone's injecting a little too much real life into their fiction stories...

Given that I immediately followed it with a comment about the narrative, you should interpret that as a sarcastic comment about the in-universe society's virtues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2: Necrons already had a unit in the high-elite tier. They had Pariahs. GW essentially removed Pariahs, dropped Immortals to Warrior levels, and dropped Warriors (and Flayed ones) to some new lower tier. Praetorians/Lychguard were sorta slotted in at former Immortal level, iirc. Basically everything just got shifted downward for no reason.

Someone at GW must have really hated Pariahs for them to not be around anymore. I thought they were a cool idea.

Pariahs vanishing is definitely a weird one - and you'd think by now GW might've noticed that there are quite a few people who'd like to see them return.

I think that was part of the big change from Necrons being sort of T800 robots that were also cybermen but also kind of a lovecraftian ancient evil with egyptian overtones and undead themes (just typing that out shows how much gets layered into GW factions!) to more Tomb Kings in Space with lots of different agendas. I know that sounds flippant and negative, but I can really see why they made the change - it allows much more for players to make "their" necrons, a "your dudes" approach that allows for lots of different paint schemes and motivations for the leaders, and also stuff like necron vs necron civil wars, and it makes the individual necron lords the important movers and shakers rather than the C'taan special characters, also differentiating necrons from Tyranids.

But Pariah's were always more part of the creepy cybermen side of that, and didn't have as much to do with the space egyptian side of things, so they got cut.

Pariahs make little sense, thematically, in the context of the Silent King fluff. If they ever come back, they will need a re-worked background.

 Insectum7 wrote:


So, similar matchup, except that the wyches charging means they get to actually win now, instead of a deadlock for 1 turn then losing the second turn.

If that's so, Wyches might be one of the few exceptions to the general "xenos decline".